Charter v. Chleborad, 551 F.2d 246

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

1977

Chapter

8

Title

A Return to Relevance I:  Limits Based on Policy

Page

370

Topic

FRE 411. Liability Insurance

Quick Notes

o    The Pl was struck by a vehicle while working as a highway flagman and received extensive injuries to his legs. The patient was hospitalized and surgery was performed on both legs. As a result of severe complications, the patient was transferred to another hospital where both legs were amputated above the knees. The patient filed a medical malpractice action against the surgeon and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the surgeon.

o     At trial, a defense witness testified that the patient's expert had a bad reputation for truth.

o    The Trial judge did not allow further cross examination after Mr. Alder said that some of his clients were insurance companies.  This evidence that Alder was employed in part by the same liability carrier who represented the surgeon was excluded.

Rule 411. Liability Insurance

o    Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.

Exception

o    This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.

Court - Holding

o    The Appellant Court held that the evidence should have been admitted to show possible bias of the witness. Under Fed. R. Evid. 403, the probative value of the evidence far outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice. The court held that it could not conclude that the trial court's exclusionary ruling was harmless error.

Book Name

Evidence: A Contemporary Approach.  Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves.  ISBN:  978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o         Whether insurance evidence for the purpose of proving employment (agency) is admissible?  Yes.

Procedure

Trial

o         United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, which was entered on a jury verdict in favor of defendant surgeon in the patient's medical malpractice action

o         District court refused to allow further questioning on the subject of insurance

Appellant

o         Reversed.

o         The Appellant Court held that the evidence should have been admitted to show possible bias of the witness. Under Fed. R. Evid. 403, the probative value of the evidence far outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice. The court held that it could not conclude that the trial court's exclusionary ruling was harmless error

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl - Charter

Df - Chleborad

Description

o         The Pl alleged medical malpractice.

o         He was in an accident where his legs suffered extensive injuries.

o         Surgery was performed on his legs.

o         Because of severe complications, the Pl was transferred to another hospital where his legs were amputated.

Trial Jury

o         Found for the Df.

Pl Arg

o         District court limited cross-examination or a rebuttal witness for the defense.

Pl - witness (Dr. Joseph Lichtor)

o         Said the complications and subsequent amputations was the defendants negligence.

Df - rebuttal (Attorney Alder)

o         Mr. Alder testified the Dr. Lichtors reputation for truth and veracity in the Kansas City area was bad.

Pl - cross-examination (Alder)

o         Alder said some of his clients in those cases were insurance cases.

District Court refused

o         District court refused to allow further questioning on the subject of insurance.

o         Mr. Alder was employed in party by the same liability carrier who represents the Df in this action.

Court Clearly Admissible

o         The fact that defendant's insurer employed Mr. Alder was clearly admissible to show possible bias of that witness.

Defendant argues - the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding evidence

Court - This argument is without merit.

o         In our opinion the probative value of the evidence far outweighs any danger of unfair prejudice.

o         Also, there is no indication in the record or briefs of the parties that any particular prejudice was threatened in this case.

o         Rule 403 was not designed to allow the blanket exclusion of evidence of insurance absent some indicia of prejudice.

o         Such a result would defeat the obvious purpose of Rule 411.

Defendant argues - any error was harmless and did not affect a substantial right of the plaintiff.

Court Pl was entitled to surrebuttal

o         To pass on this argument we must view the total circumstances of the case.

o         Plaintiff's claim rested for the most part on the credibility of his expert witness.

o         When defendant undertook to impeach that witness plaintiff was entitled to attempt to show possible bias of Mr. Alder as surrebuttal. 

o         Considering the importance of expert testimony in this case we cannot conclude that the trial court's exclusionary ruling was mere harmless error

Reversed

Rules

Rule 411. Liability Insurance

o    Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.

Exception

o    This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.

o    Book

o    Juries might use evidence of a Df - liability insurance to compensate a Pl without first determining fault.

o    Since the Df - insurance has unlimited resource, the jury might automatically think the Df should pay.

o    Public Policy

o    Encourages people to obtain liability insurance to compensate accident victims without such information being used against them at trial.

Class Notes